Shoju wrote:I'm open, and receptive to: Banning Tactical Assault weapons, both in an Automatic, and semiautomatic functionality. Limiting the magazine capacity of firearms. Removing high capacity drum and stick mags from the marketplace. Limiting the caliber/size of ammunition that is legal to own. There comes a time when big, is simply too big. Requiring guns to be registered.Requiring Firearm owners to be licensed.Requiring more stringent wait times, and background checks. Requiring these regulations no matter if the sale is made in a store, online, or at a gun show. Capping the maximum number of firearms that an individual citizen is allowed to own.

The statistics show that handguns are far and away the most commonly-used implement in murders. Your suggestions seem to be primarily about tactical assault weapons.

Of 8775 people killed by firearms, 358 were killed by rifles, and only a sub-section of that number would be by assault rifles.

Yes they are big and scary. Yes they can cause a lot of damage in the wrong hands. But is going after a small percentage of the problem really going to make a difference to the whole?

As a side note, people who say "well guns kill more people than knives/bombs/poison gas/angry laser death sharks" kind of sicken me. The point isn't how many people were killed - the point is that anyone was killed at all. That's where the tragedy lies; the difference is that the media doesn't harp on it ceaselessly for weeks or months after the event. Similarly, people who say "well if they didn't have guns, they'd use knives/bombs/poison gas/angry laser death sharks to do it". Point of the matter is, they had guns. They used guns. Arguing that they might have, in an alternate universe, used something else instead is irrelevant.

- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.

Fivelives wrote:As a side note, people who say "well guns kill more people than knives/bombs/poison gas/angry laser death sharks" kind of sicken me. The point isn't how many people were killed - the point is that anyone was killed at all. That's where the tragedy lies; the difference is that the media doesn't harp on it ceaselessly for weeks or months after the event. Similarly, people who say "well if they didn't have guns, they'd use knives/bombs/poison gas/angry laser death sharks to do it". Point of the matter is, they had guns. They used guns. Arguing that they might have, in an alternate universe, used something else instead is irrelevant.

There are laws against people killing people, and for the most part they do a decent job, but people are still going to kill people - it's been happening since there were people.

What I am after is to make it less convenient to kill people. Maybe if you had to get up close and personal to someone to knife them to death it would be less convenient than standing several yards away squeezing a trigger. Perhaps that alone is enough to turn 8775 firearms murders into 8774, and a life is saved.

The implement is relevant as to the convenience and "impersonal-ness" of the weapon. People can get squeamish if they have to kill someone with their bare hands, and some are simply not physically up to the task. Weapons make it both easier and less personal. Ranged weapons (and I'll include bombs and poisons here) make it even less personal.

The more difficult and more personal you force a murder to be, the less likely the murder is to take place as the perpetrator may chicken out or be unable to do the crime.

If murder is as easy as "I was pissed off at him and I had my gun in my pocket so I popped a cap in his ass", then the likelihood of someone doing it in the heat of the moment is far greater than if there was no weapon. With no weapon it maybe turns into an assault instead of a murder.

Shoju wrote:I'm open, and receptive to: Banning Tactical Assault weapons, both in an Automatic, and semiautomatic functionality. Limiting the magazine capacity of firearms. Removing high capacity drum and stick mags from the marketplace. Limiting the caliber/size of ammunition that is legal to own. There comes a time when big, is simply too big. Requiring guns to be registered.Requiring Firearm owners to be licensed.Requiring more stringent wait times, and background checks. Requiring these regulations no matter if the sale is made in a store, online, or at a gun show. Capping the maximum number of firearms that an individual citizen is allowed to own.

The statistics show that handguns are far and away the most commonly-used implement in murders. Your suggestions seem to be primarily about tactical assault weapons.

Of 8775 people killed by firearms, 358 were killed by rifles, and only a sub-section of that number would be by assault rifles.

Yes they are big and scary. Yes they can cause a lot of damage in the wrong hands. But is going after a small percentage of the problem really going to make a difference to the whole?

Why not target the 6009 handgun killings?

Primarily about tactical Assault Weapons?

Limiting the magazine Capacity of FirearmsLimiting the caliber/size of ammunitionRequiring all firearms to registeredRequiring all owners to be licensedMore Stringent wait times requiring regulations to matter on the sale no matter where it was madecapping the number of firearms an invidiual can own.

7 of the 8 ideas that I spitballed off the top of my head affect EVERY gun. I mean, if you wanted to get "really" technical, it's 6 and a half, since limiting the magazine capacity won't affect many shotguns and revolvers. Drum and Stick Mags are available as an aftermarket accessory for almost any firearm that takes a magazine. Handguns, Shotguns, Rifles. Yes. Even Handguns. http://www.mississippiautoarms.com/gloc ... -2530.html

Every other idea that I spitballed off the top of my head in 30 seconds while writing a post directly impacts the sale, proliferation, ownership, of handguns. (except for the outright ban on the sale of Tactical Assault Weapons.

Hell, I just came up with another regulation. All new guns manufactured, should implement the multiple safety firing system that brands like Springfield already include in their handguns. It should be applied to rifles, shotguns, and handguns, manufactured and sold in the United States. While that isn't "directly" influencing gun crime, it will move the needle in a positive manner in the number of accidents that happen with firearms.

Will this stop one on one gun crime? No. But it should make a noticeable change. It should provide a "move in the needle" on the issue. Everyone wants to keep pointing at the size of the population when talking statistics. So lets talk about size of the population, and culture for a second. The United States is a country of 316 odd million people. Who for 200+ years have lived in a culture where handgun ownership is not just a right, at multiple times in our history it has been encouraged.

So what do we do? We start progressively. We work to increase Gun Safety, Gun regulations, reinstitute the Assault Weapons Ban. Remove High Capacity Mags, Don't take away the freedom to own a gun, just make it harder to purchase a gun.

And at the same time, we work to move the lust for blood in our culture. Not by banning things out right, but by having responsible conversations. And we work to improve our Mental Health care. And we work to combat the problem with guns coming from Mexico. And we need to implement stricter laws and sentencing guidelines regarding gun crime.

You can't just point at Handguns and say: "That's the problem." Because it's not the problem. A gun, sitting in a lock box, in the top of a closet, or in a Gun Safe, left alone, has a ridiculously low chance of killing someone on its own. I mean, at that point, we are talking about a catastrophic failure of the gun, the ammo, the lock box / safe, etc...

Improved Gun Regulations are just one piece of the puzzle. It's not the final solution.

I'd say bi-annual recertification in order to keep your license. Including bi-annual background checks, target practice at the shooting range and other methods to ensure that the gun-owner is not only proficient in the use of the gun, but also up to date with safety measures around gun use.

Brekkie:Tanks are like shitty DPS. And healers are like REALLY distracted DPSAmirya:Why yes, your penis is longer than his because you hit 30k dps in the first 10 seconds. But guess what? That raid boss has a dick bigger than your ego. Flex:I don't make mistakes. I execute carefully planned strategic group wipes.Levie:(in /g) It's weird, I have a collar and I dont know where I got it from, Worgen are kinky!Levie:Drunk Lev goes and does what he pleases just to annoy sober Lev.Sagara:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.

Klaudandus wrote:I'd say bi-annual recertification in order to keep your license. Including bi-annual background checks, target practice at the shooting range and other methods to ensure that the gun-owner is not only proficient in the use of the gun, but also up to date with safety measures around gun use.

Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right.

While I don't think it's asking too much, pushing through a bi-annual recert would be tough sledding. Annual Re-Cert would probably be passable.

Klaudandus wrote:I'd say bi-annual recertification in order to keep your license. Including bi-annual background checks, target practice at the shooting range and other methods to ensure that the gun-owner is not only proficient in the use of the gun, but also up to date with safety measures around gun use.

Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right.

While I don't think it's asking too much, pushing through a bi-annual recert would be tough sledding. Annual Re-Cert would probably be passable.

Ok, make it a year. Although the confusion is really my fault, I meant biennial

Klaudandus wrote:I'd say bi-annual recertification in order to keep your license. Including bi-annual background checks, target practice at the shooting range and other methods to ensure that the gun-owner is not only proficient in the use of the gun, but also up to date with safety measures around gun use.

Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right.

While I don't think it's asking too much, pushing through a bi-annual recert would be tough sledding. Annual Re-Cert would probably be passable.

Ok, make it a year. Although the confusion is really my fault, I meant biennial

Hey biennial would work too, and would surely be easier to pass.

We make kids in ohio have a driver's permit for 6 months (they can get their permit at 15 1/2.) pass a written test, driving test, and maneuverability test drive with a parent or guardian until they are 16drive with someone over the age of 21 after 16receive 24 hours of in class training 8 hours of instructed driving with a teacher50 hours with a parent, 10 of which MUST be night driving

All before they are allowed to get their licenseOnce they have a license, they can't have more than one passenger until they are 17, and can't drive between midnight and 6am.

But, we have no restrictive procedure for owning a gun. You have to complete a hunter's safety course for your hunting permit. But it fails in comparison to the regulations required to drive.

I'm Pro Gun, but I'm not Pro Stupid. If we require someone we believe to be of competent age to operate a motor vehicle to complete a comprehensive training process, why don't we have something similar for firearm safety?

And because it's crossed my mind, I'm also not of the opinion that "Grandfathering" into the old law should be applicable, without stringent guidelines. I.E. CCW license for multiple years (3? 5?) Hunting License continuously held for multiple years, etc...

I am curious to know how many of those 8775 handgun murders were committed by legally-licensed handgun owners using the gun registered to them, and how many were committed using guns bought off the streets by people with no license/permit/whatever.

I see it as more of a supply issue than a licensing one. I think severely limiting the sale of handguns would do more to begin the process of removing them from the population than adding more license restrictions.

Koatanga wrote:I am curious to know how many of those 8775 handgun murders were committed by legally-licensed handgun owners using the gun registered to them, and how many were committed using guns bought off the streets by people with no license/permit/whatever.

I see it as more of a supply issue than a licensing one. I think severely limiting the sale of handguns would do more to begin the process of removing them from the population than adding more license restrictions.

I think this is why this debate breaks down very quickly. In one single sentence you went from limiting to removing guns. I think any rational person is open to debating licensing or restrictions, but immediately after that debate starts it turns into removing and banning.

Koatanga wrote:What I am after is to make it less convenient to kill people. Maybe if you had to get up close and personal to someone to knife them to death it would be less convenient than standing several yards away squeezing a trigger. Perhaps that alone is enough to turn 8775 firearms murders into 8774, and a life is saved.

If someone is pissed off enough to kill another person, they're going to use whatever is handy to do so. Whether that be a gun, knife, rock, stick, or rabid badger doesn't really matter. The only difference is in what's handy. I highly doubt that if we completely removed guns as A Thing™ that murder rates would necessarily go down - only murders done by guns (since they no longer exist).

The implement is relevant as to the convenience and "impersonal-ness" of the weapon. People can get squeamish if they have to kill someone with their bare hands, and some are simply not physically up to the task. Weapons make it both easier and less personal. Ranged weapons (and I'll include bombs and poisons here) make it even less personal.

Bombs and poisons require as much forethought as grabbing a gun from a gun safe. The key step in reducing impulse violence is adding a delay mechanism - whether that be unlocking a tumbler safe (for guns), manufacturing (for bombs), or mixing (for poisoning). Reducing the number of guns isn't the issue here - it's reducing the immediate access. If you add a step for people to sit back and think, they will likely change their mind. If they don't, then they were resolved to do the crime anyway, and reducing overall access to the tool isn't going to stop it.

The more difficult and more personal you force a murder to be, the less likely the murder is to take place as the perpetrator may chicken out or be unable to do the crime.

See above.

If murder is as easy as "I was pissed off at him and I had my gun in my pocket so I popped a cap in his ass", then the likelihood of someone doing it in the heat of the moment is far greater than if there was no weapon. With no weapon it maybe turns into an assault instead of a murder.

There is no such thing as "no weapon". You are never out of arm's reach of something that could be used to possibly kill another person - whether that be something obvious like a knife, or not so obvious like a television, there's always an improvised weapon at hand.

Perhaps limiting the ability to "bear" guns would help? I don't see restricting purchases (beyond something simple like "total number of guns owned") being feasible, but we could restrict carrying guns to those who are licensed to carry. The certification/recertification process is already in place in some states - like Florida, where your license to carry a concealed weapon expires every 7 years. Drop that to 2 years (the length of time a CPR license is valid for) and make it mandatory for every gun owner and household member of a gun owner - because let's be serious, I don't think it likely that someone is going to buy a gun without the at least tacit approval of the rest of the people in their home. Separate it into tiers; basic carry permits for open carry (openly visible either in the vehicle or on a person) and concealed carry permits for law enforcement personnel and "special circumstances*" only.

Because I do agree that there's largely no reason to conceal a firearm. Half the job of protecting oneself can be done simply when people see you carrying an iron on your hip - concealing it nullifies that whole "make someone else think twice" thing.

That said, I do have a concealed carry permit. I got it because I live near the border of a reservation where they don't post signs letting you know when you're actually on a reservation. When I got pulled over by the tribal cops on the state highway here (in Arizona) and busted for a weapons charge - illegal carrying on tribal land - I went out and got it. Case was dismissed, since I was on an Arizona highway and had absolutely no reasonable way of knowing exactly where the border was, but still. Concealed carry permits allow you to carry in every state that recognizes those permits, and on all federal land, including tribal reservations.

* By "special circumstances" think taxi drivers, truckers, etc. People who are in the most at-risk professions should have the right to defend themselves in cases where police can't get to them immediately.

- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.

Koatanga wrote:I am curious to know how many of those 8775 handgun murders were committed by legally-licensed handgun owners using the gun registered to them, and how many were committed using guns bought off the streets by people with no license/permit/whatever.

I see it as more of a supply issue than a licensing one. I think severely limiting the sale of handguns would do more to begin the process of removing them from the population than adding more license restrictions.

I think this is why this debate breaks down very quickly. In one single sentence you went from limiting to removing guns. I think any rational person is open to debating licensing or restrictions, but immediately after that debate starts it turns into removing and banning.

You misunderstood me. I am talking about severely restricting the sale of handguns so that numbers of handguns will gradually decline by attrition of the existing supply (damage, confiscation in crimes, lost). I am not talking about a door-to-door removal of guns from the population.

I understand you can't force people to give up their guns, and people are not going to want to give up their guns. But if you choke the supply, then it starts the very gradual process of removing handguns. It won't happen overnight, but it means that when Ma Kettle goes to the Wal Mart to buy her some home defense, she buys a shotgun instead of a handgun, and there's one less handgun out there. Repeat for a few generations and maybe at some point the rate of handgun murders declines.

I didn't misunderstand, I chose to interpret it that way to prove a point. Any debate of any variation of gun control eventually devolves into removal and/or banning. As soon as any mention of removal comes into the debate, it has ceased to become a debate and both sides become polarized. It seems that any time anyone tries to bring up any form of gun control, it becomes apparent very quickly that the end game goal is wholesale removal of firearms. Up to that point, there was a positive debate about "responsible gun ownership", which again, any rational person should be willing to discuss.

I was discussing this subject with a buddy, and I told him that maybe some people value their freedom more than their safety. He responded with "That's easy for you to say, you get to carry no matter what." I looked at him until he realized he just proved my point. He was referring to the fact that I'm a federal agent, and carry concealed on and off duty without regard to state laws. (well, not so concealed when I'm on duty, but I could go do Intel sometime.)

Making it harder to get guns is de facto removal of them from circulation. Unless you want the restrictions to not have any effect whatsoever on who has guns, then you're in favour of removing guns (even if just from the mentally ill)...

Yes, that's right, a large advertisement selling guns on the same page as a story about the Newtown shooting. Because if those students were armed, that gunman might not have survived the first classroom, right?

ok i rarely ever post here but i want to say this about that newspaper..that's in my hometown, and its a crap local paper that screwed up on the lay out. It was not the intention of that gun store (one i know and friends go 2 for supplies) to have thier add ran like that. someone at the paper either screwed up, was blatently stupid, or (put on tin foil hat) did it to cause drama/make gun stores look bad.

Koatanga wrote:You misunderstood me. I am talking about severely restricting the sale of handguns so that numbers of handguns will gradually decline by attrition of the existing supply (damage, confiscation in crimes, lost). I am not talking about a door-to-door removal of guns from the population.

I understand you can't force people to give up their guns, and people are not going to want to give up their guns. But if you choke the supply, then it starts the very gradual process of removing handguns. It won't happen overnight, but it means that when Ma Kettle goes to the Wal Mart to buy her some home defense, she buys a shotgun instead of a handgun, and there's one less handgun out there. Repeat for a few generations and maybe at some point the rate of handgun murders declines.

But you have already said, that your goal is to remove handguns. You said that you would ban them outright.

I'm not OK with handguns and assault rifles. No one needs to go semi-automatic against a deer. Those are for people. Handguns, in the general sense, are not sufficiently accurate for hunting and are valued for concealability and close-quarters combat. I don't believe the general population needs guns designed for use against people.

So really, he isn't misunderstanding you. Based on what you have said consistently through this thread, you would be completely in favor of removing handguns.

And just one slight nitpick. Wal-Mart hasn't sold handguns in any of it's continental 48 stores since the mid 1990's, and they are only available in Alaska via Special order. So if Ma Kettle is going to wal mart to buy a home defense piece, she's buying a rifle or shotgun anyway.

And the scenario you outlined only works at reducing the number of legally owned handguns. it does nothing to the handguns that are illegally obtained, smuggled across a border, or even legally obtained Mail Order.

And how do you severely restrict the sale? Are you going to come up with arbitrary reasons why people can't purchase handguns? Because the current rate of declines on background checks for purchases is about 1%. Even if you raise that threshold to 10%, you aren't putting much of a dent in the legally owned handgun market.

Seems like there is a lot of misunderstanding of what "semi-automatic" means, and a misconception that "assault weapons" are somehow fundamentally different from other weapons and can somehow be banned independently.

Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.